Our editorial mission

TIC exists to help African retail investors choose a safe broker and avoid losing money to scams. Every article we publish is written to serve the reader — not the broker, not the affiliate programme, not the advertiser.

Our editorial work must be three things at once: true, useful, and honest about what we do not know. When the data is thin, we say so. When a broker’s claim cannot be verified, we say so. When we change our mind, we publish the change and explain why.

Editorial independence

TIC earns affiliate commissions on some of the brokers we rate positively. This is fully disclosed in every review and in our affiliate disclosure. It is the only way we fund the site. Independence means commissions do not change what we publish.

The five hard rules

• No broker can pay to be reviewed. Review eligibility is decided by the editorial team based on reader demand and market relevance — never by commercial discussions.
• No broker can pay for a specific score, verdict, or placement on a “best of” list. Scores come from the published methodology. “Best of” rankings are ordered strictly by TIC Score.
• No broker sees a review before it is published. Brokers are not shown drafts, scores, or verdicts for pre-approval. The first time a broker sees our review is the moment the public does.
• No score is ever changed because of an affiliate conversation. Scores can change when the broker’s data changes — never when the commercial terms change. Every score change is logged with the date and reason.
• Affiliate commission rates do not affect ranking. A broker paying a higher commission does not rank higher. A broker paying no commission can appear at the top of a list if it earns the TIC Score.

Any broker that proposes conditioning an affiliate deal on editorial treatment is removed from our affiliate programme and flagged in its next review.

Accuracy and sourcing

Every factual claim in a TIC article must be verifiable. We use three source tiers, and higher tiers always beat lower ones.

Source tiers

• Tier A — Primary sources. Regulator registries (FCA, CySEC, ASIC, FSCA, CMA Kenya, CMSA Tanzania), official broker client agreements, published financial statements, statutory filings, and our own live account testing. These are the only acceptable sources for claims about regulation, fund segregation, and legal entities.
• Tier B — Official broker channels. Broker websites, support responses in writing, published fee schedules, and official communications. Acceptable for claims about features and pricing, but treated as claims — not proofs — and verified against Tier A where possible.
• Tier C — Third-party reporting. Reputable financial press, industry databases, and peer review sites. Acceptable for context and historical background, never for the core claim of an article.

We do not use unverified forum posts, anonymous Telegram group claims, or “trader signal” sources in any form. Reader-reported experiences (Tier D, below) can trigger investigation but are never the sole source of a published claim.

Fact-checking process

No article is published without a second editor signing off against the sources. The fact-checking process has four stages.

1. Stage 1 — Writer fact-check. The writer assembles the evidence file for every factual claim in the article (licence numbers, screenshots, transaction records, regulator links) before submitting for editing.
2. Stage 2 — Editor review. A second editor reviews every factual claim against the evidence file. Any claim without a Tier A or Tier B source is flagged for removal or explicit qualification.
3. Stage 3 — Methodology check. For broker reviews, a methodology lead verifies that scores match the rubric and that the evidence supports each sub-score.
4. Stage 4 — Pre-publication sign-off. The editor logs the sign-off, the date, and the version of the methodology used. This appears as the “Reviewed by” byline on the published article.

For broker reviews specifically, the evidence file is retained for a minimum of 3 years after publication, so any published claim can be re-audited.

Writing standards

TIC’s house style is plain, direct, and short. We write for readers who are risking real money and need to decide quickly whether a broker is safe.

The rules

• Use short, declarative sentences. One idea per sentence. The average sentence is under 20 words.
• Name numbers, don’t describe them. “EUR/USD spread of 0.9 pips” — not “tight spreads”. “Withdrawal processed in 6 hours” — not “fast withdrawals”.
• Name the year, not “recently”. Time references must be specific (“April 2026”) so the reader can tell if the article is fresh.
• Name the country, not “some regions”. Regulatory and pricing claims vary sharply by country. We say “Kenyan clients” or “South African accounts” — never “some traders”.
• No hype adjectives. The words “amazing”, “incredible”, “best-in-class”, “game-changing”, and similar are banned from all TIC content.
• No fake urgency. We do not use “act now”, “limited time”, “only 3 spots left”, or similar language. Ever.
• No guarantees. We do not guarantee returns, profitability, withdrawal speed, or any future outcome. Trading is risky; our content states this.
• Every negative claim must be evidenced. If we say a broker has a withdrawal problem, we cite specific evidence — our own test, a regulator warning, or a verified reader report pattern.
• Every affiliate link is disclosed. Affiliate links are marked inline and disclosed in the article. Readers always know when a link may earn us a commission.

Bylines and accountability

Every TIC article carries a named author, a named editor, and a date. The byline is visible at the top of the article — not hidden in a footer.

• Every article has a named writer. We do not publish under generic handles like “Editorial team” or “Staff”. A real person’s name is attached to every piece of published work.
• Every article has a named editor. The editor who signed off is shown alongside the writer.
• Every broker review has a “last tested” date. This is the date the live testing was completed, not the publication date.
• Authors must qualify for the subject. Broker review authors must have completed the live testing process themselves. Regulatory analysis authors must have read the actual client agreement being cited.
• Authors are accountable for corrections. If an article contains an error, the original author is named in the correction.

Full team profiles, roles, and contact information are on our team page.

Corrections policy

We correct errors quickly, visibly, and with an audit trail. We do not silently edit published articles.

What counts as a correction

• Factual error. Any claim that is wrong — a misstated fee, a wrong licence number, a broken link to a regulator. These are corrected and logged.
• Broker change. The broker has changed a fee, a leverage limit, or a product, and our article no longer reflects reality. Updated and dated.
• Score change. The underlying data has moved enough to change the TIC Score. The old score, new score, and the specific data point that moved are all logged.
• Clarification. A claim is technically correct but easy to misread. We rephrase and note the change.

How corrections appear

1. Inline correction. The article is updated at the affected claim, with the corrected text replacing the error.
2. Correction note. A dated correction note is appended at the top or bottom of the article, stating what was wrong and what was changed.
3. Change log on broker reviews. For broker reviews, every change is logged in a persistent change-log section with the date, the field that changed, the old value, and the new value.
4. Reader notification. If the error materially affects the article’s recommendation, we flag the correction prominently at the top of the article for at least 14 days.

We do not delete articles to hide errors. An article containing a significant error is corrected in place, or if the error is so fundamental that correction is not possible, retracted with a retraction notice in place of the original text — never silently removed.

Conflicts of interest

The people writing and editing TIC can themselves own assets, hold trading accounts, or have prior relationships with brokers. The rules exist to make sure those do not influence published content.

• Authors disclose broker relationships. Any analyst or editor who has worked for a broker, consulted for a broker, or holds a material financial interest in a broker discloses it to the editorial lead before working on any article about that broker.
• Authors do not write about brokers they hold a personal live account with for trading purposes. Accounts opened exclusively for TIC review testing are exempt and disclosed.
• Authors do not trade the instruments they are actively writing about. During the drafting of any broker review, the author does not hold live positions on that broker’s platform.
• Gifts, hospitality, and paid trips from brokers are refused. A broker offering a free trip, dinner, or promotional gift is declined politely and logged.
• No author owns equity in a broker they cover. Shareholding in a publicly-listed broker group is disclosed and that author is removed from reviews of that broker.

Use of AI in content

AI tools are used at TIC. We do not hide this. We also do not substitute AI for the real work of reviewing a broker.

• AI does not write broker reviews. Broker reviews are written by named human analysts based on their own live testing. AI is not used to draft, rewrite, or rephrase the core findings.
• AI may assist with research and formatting. Assembling regulator registry data, summarising long client agreements, suggesting headline structures, or spot-checking grammar are acceptable uses.
• AI-generated content is always human-reviewed. No AI output is published without a human editor verifying every factual claim against Tier A or Tier B sources.
• AI-generated images are labelled. Where AI is used to generate illustrations (not photographs of real people, places, or documents), the image is explicitly labelled as AI-generated.
• AI is never used to fake author identity. Named authors on TIC are real people. We do not publish under fictional AI-generated personas.

How we handle broker pressure

Brokers sometimes try to change what we publish. The policy is the same regardless of who is asking.

• Factual correction requests are welcomed. If a broker provides evidence that a specific claim is wrong, we verify the evidence and correct the article. Brokers can contest the data.
• Score or verdict challenges are refused. Brokers cannot contest the rubric, the category weights, or a score calculated correctly from the published data. The methodology is public for exactly this reason.
• Commercial pressure is refused and logged. A broker threatening to withdraw from our affiliate programme in response to editorial coverage has their threat added to the next review. A broker offering additional commission in exchange for an editorial change has the offer refused and added to the next review.
• Legal threats are assessed, not complied with reflexively. Legal pressure from a broker is reviewed on the merits with legal advice. A well-sourced, accurate article is not retracted because it is embarrassing to the broker.
• Patterns are published. If a specific broker has a pattern of attempting to suppress coverage, that pattern itself becomes part of our coverage.

Takedowns and right of reply

Any broker or reader can request a correction, clarification, or right of reply. Requests are processed by the editorial team on documented timelines.

• Correction requests. Reviewed within 5 business days. Correction published within 2 business days of the evidence being verified.
• Right of reply. Any broker we have named in a negative claim may submit a short written response. Where the response is factually supported, it is published alongside the original claim within 10 business days.
• Takedown requests. Articles are not removed on request. Specific sentences may be corrected; entire articles are not deleted. If an article is so fundamentally wrong that it cannot be corrected, it is retracted in place with a retraction notice.
• Legal takedowns. A legal takedown request is processed through our legal adviser. We do not comply with unfounded takedown demands, including those based on commercial discomfort, reputation, or loss of business.

Contact and reporting

We are accountable to readers. Every article has a “Report an issue” link. For broader feedback — corrections, methodology suggestions, partnership enquiries, or formal complaints — contact the editorial team directly.

• Report an issue with a specific article. Use the “Report an issue” link on the article itself. Triaged within 5 business days.
• Suggest a broker for review. Email the editorial team via our contact page. We prioritise brokers with high reader demand and African market relevance.
• Report a scam or regulator warning we have missed. Email the editorial team with the source. Confirmed cases trigger an urgent review within 48 hours.
• Formal complaint about TIC coverage. Submit to the editorial team in writing. Formal complaints are reviewed by an editor who was not involved in the original article, and responded to within 10 business days.

The TIC editorial team is contactable at our contact page or directly through the channels listed there.